The Gaza Aid Mission promised relief. It delivered chaos, guns, and PR spin.
Not owned by a corporation, not bought by politicians, not scared by right wing agendas. Remark'd investigates issues that actually matter.
What people are currently caring about...
The world watched starving civilians sprint between fences, gunfire cracking in the background, some clutching food, others empty-handed - all of them trapped between hope and humiliation. This wasn’t war footage. This was a US-backed humanitarian mission.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a vaguely defined aid outfit launched with American-Israeli backing, was supposed to mark a breakthrough in emergency response. What it delivered, instead, was a masterclass in how to militarise compassion, privatise responsibility, and blur the lines between relief and regime change.
It came with all the makings of a dystopian playbook: masked ex-CIA contractors doling out lentils behind barbed wire. An executive director resigning the day before launch, citing irreconcilable differences with basic humanitarian principles. Gunshot wounds treated by the Red Cross. And an emerging paper trail so redacted and opaque it might as well have been printed in invisible ink.
Aid? Technically. Transparency? Missing in action. Impact? A mix of PR fantasy and physical danger.
GHF’s stated aim was to bypass traditional aid networks - like the UN - and deliver food “efficiently.” Instead, it created high-security spectacle: fenced distribution zones guarded by men with guns, drones overhead, and distribution quantities so laughably small they barely registered against the needs of two million starving people.
The company managing security, Safe Reach Solutions, is run by a former CIA officer. No one knows much more than that - and they’re not saying. Meanwhile, top aid experts, including former World Food Programme chief David Beasley, have either denied involvement or refused to confirm it. Jake Wood, GHF’s former director, exited with a damning statement: “It is not possible to implement this plan while strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.”
Translation: this isn’t aid. It’s optics. Which brings us to the point. GHF isn’t a humanitarian organisation in any recognisable sense. It’s a proxy - a politically convenient tool draped in charitable language.
According to Oxfam and other groups, its model reflects Israel’s broader war aims: the creation of militarised “logistics hubs” that corral Palestinians into shrinking corners of Gaza while depopulating the rest. For Israel, it’s neat. For the US, it’s palatable. For Palestinians, it’s displacement with paperwork.
At every turn, the operation reads like something dreamt up in a Washington think tank and greenlit by an army of lawyers with no field experience. According to the Israeli government, it’s working. According to everyone else - from UN officials to local NGOs - it’s a disaster. The UN’s top aid coordinator in Gaza called it “a cynical sideshow... a fig leaf for further violence and displacement.” But perhaps the most chilling part isn’t the failure - it’s the precedent. GHF’s approach, if deemed “successful” by political actors, could normalise private militarised aid.
That means less oversight, less accountability, and a humanitarian space defined not by need, but by strategic usefulness.
Amed Khan, an experienced relief organiser, was blunt: “No one who has ever delivered food in a conflict zone would think it’s a good idea to militarise it.”
That’s not just an indictment. It’s a warning. And yet, US ambassador Mike Huckabee (yes, him) insists critics should “put aside their fears and get involved.”
Because what’s a few civilian gunshot wounds when there’s a ribbon-cutting opportunity? Let’s be clear: this isn’t humanitarian aid. It’s displacement logistics wrapped in Stars and Stripes. It’s a distraction from blockade-driven famine. And it’s a violation of everything humanitarianism is supposed to be.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has no moral foundation.
It’s a policy instrument.
A propaganda machine.
A literal gated community of dry pasta, armed guards, and broken international law.
If this is what the future of aid looks like, we should all be afraid.
